If you can turn the flash into a soft fill light, it's ok - but it's PITA, otherwise it sucks.

So unless you use your flash right, it sucks. Yes. Many, many things are like that.

This was done with a single flash unit, bounced (as one should, unless one wants a very harsh light):

So was this one; a white ceiling helps amazingly:

If you're using your built-in flash, forget it. That's good for daylight fill and that's about it. Real flash work needs a real flash; point it at a wall, the ceiling, the floor; easier to diffuse than a built-in flash; it's an extra step, and some people just plain don't like it, but there's no denying that high ISO sensitivity will NOT replace what one can do with a flash unit, even a cheap one, or even just clever utilization of a built-in flash. High ISO won't bring shadows out of photos back-lit by the sun, f'rinstance.

Plop a decent bounceable flash like the $240 Speedlite 430EX II on your camera, tilt the head to bounce the light off of the ceiling or a handy wall, and you can get pretty decent photos without off-camera flash units or umbrellas. If you're outdoors, then the umbrella or a reflector may be an indispensable accessory.

Just some very recent G1 pics here, try the slideshow button. Most (all) with the manual focus 50mm f1.4 Minolta Rokkor-X (Leica). There were several cases where manual focus gets the shot vs automatic if I had center-focus on. But the intelligent auto-focus would have nailed it since it detects motion/faces and uses that.

As far as flashes go, the closer to the axis of the center of the lens, the worse complexions will look. The G1 pop-up flash blows right through skin and makes people look like raw meat, especially since it is about as close as you can get to a point source. The way to get around it is to grab yourself a chunk of Styrofoam cup and use it as a reflector for your built-in flash when indoors. Cups are usually available at social events anyhow. Use it to block the direct light and bounce it up to the ceiling. If outside use a cut ping-pong ball as a diffuser. It reduces the range, but for fill, it works great.

If you kicked the built-in flash off the camera, I wouldn't miss it one bit. I would much rather have one that I could bounce or put a diffuser on.

liquidsquid wrote:Now I hope I am still posting useful data for the OP, I think I have stolen this thread...

No probs mate, I've been lurking in the shadows the last couple of days because I’ve been out much of the time helping a few friends.

I have, however, been reading the ever recondite discussion and following as best I can, though owing to some unforeseen circumstances (I have to find a new place to live) the camera has been put on the back burner temporarily. That isn’t to say that it’s been written off – I will definitely get one, and this thread will (and has) definitely help/ed.

On a side note, I saw this and laughed, until my friend pointed out that this is real and not some kind of RPG - to which I laughed harder. I wonder if his other arm is that well toned...

Apparently it's a Sigma Telephoto zoom 200-500mm f2.8

"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life."

hat isn’t to say that it’s been written off – I will definitely get one

The longer you wait, the cheaper and better they'll get. I'm betting that in two or three years, DSLR makers will have bodies starting at a couple hundred dollars brand new. Nothing but speculation on my part, of course, but I'm just looking at the trend.

Well it's been a while and I'm finally in the position where I can go out and buy. So now the question is: is it still worth getting a D90? Are there any more recent cameras that out-perform it? Are these stupid questions? I just don't know...

I've got my finger on the trigger, and am about ready to go out now and drop a lot of coin. I just have this nagging feeling that maybe I should revise my homework to see if it's still up to date.

One good thing is that the D90 has gone down in price significantly since I was last looking at buying one - which allows me to spend more on lenses I presume.

"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life."

It still holds true: Go out and test-drive a bit first before pulling the trigger.

I also still recommend considering the smaller cameras in the u4/3 crowd for portability, but the D90 is still a very good camera. I have been tempted a few times to go to a full dSLR when I am doing low-light work, but I find that to be very infrequent compared to day-to-day snaps of the family and general trips. Since using larger aperture lenses, it is rare I need to go over ISO800 so the u4/3 is good for me. I am still put-off by the sheer size of a dSLR now that I have grown accustomed to the u4/3 system, especially when they have a decent zoom in-place. Although, I have to admit, it has a reassuring weight to it.

One thing of note: I have been using Adobe Lightroom beta, and it is fantastic for taking the RAW images from my G1 and stepping up the IQ considerably in the noise department. What it showed me is the image processing within the camera is very important as well as the obvious sensor/lens combo. There is a measure of image processing before saving to RAW, and then even more before saving a JPG. LR can take a so-so RAW image and perform some magic on it, and make it much more appealing. So consider this software into your budget as well, it is worth it!

Echo the "try before you buy". Also stress the unique characteristics of each system - lens range, flash features etc.

Canon has a wide range of consumer zooms, but their standout lenses for me are the 10-22 EF-S, 35/1.4L 50/1.4 USM, 85/1.2L, 70-200/4L. None of those lenses are cheap, though they're usually a bit cheaper than Nikon's alternatives. The 18-55 IS that ships with the kit is pretty decent these days (my dad has the old 18-55 kit which is a POS). If you're interested in dabbling with video, the 550D (Rebel T2i) is probably the most advanced video DSLR in its range.

I'm a bit less familiar with Nikon's range. Their 18-55 has been generally quite well regarded, and they have a good reputation in primes. I do know that many Nikon shooters prefer the Tamron 17-50/2.8 as their walkabout lens for a fraction of the price of the Nikon version. I have a friend with a D90 and the 10-24, 18-55, 55-200, 35/1.8m 18-105, 80-200, 105/2 (phew!) and he's pretty happy with it, although he also suggests you look at the 550D just because it is the most up-to-date midrange DSLR on the market at the moment.

I'm a Micro Four Thirds user myself, came from Canon L glass and pro bodies, but got sick of the weight. There are some really good lenses, but they are expensive and selection is still poor. However, the camera that you carry with you will always take better pictures than the camera you leave at home, so I have no regrets. My GF1+20/1.7+7-14+Legacy SMC-Tak 50/1.4 weighs about the same as my dad's 40D+50/1.4. There's a lot of good Oly glass on FT (not MFT), but my Panasonic body won't work with most of them. Shame .

I do still feel some envy for the Pentax K-x, which is one of the smallest DSLRs on the market, and their range of amazing primes (I'm a prime man, a segment not too well served by MFT). The DA 15/4 Limited, DA 21/3.2 AL Limited, DA 35/2.8 Limited, FA 31/1.8 Limited, FA 43/1.9 Limited, FA 77/1.8 Limited are all lustworthy for me. Hm... come to think of it, maybe it's a good thing I didn't buy Pentax after all, since I'd be bankrupt in a week . The K-x does have an annoying omission in that the active AF point doesn't light up, and that can be a deal killer for some.

Right now Adorama has a Nikon-refurb'd D90 for $700. I own one and I'm a Nikon guy, so I know my point of view has that bias thing going on, but I know for sure that it's a great tool for the money. A slew of caveats apply: For example, I'm a sucker for the wireless flash control in the D90, but if that's not an important feature for you then the value is a little less.

I also know that the Canon T1i or T2i can also take excellent pictures for the money. These days it's getting difficult to go wrong.

SPOOFE wrote:Right now Adorama has a Nikon-refurb'd D90 for $700. I own one and I'm a Nikon guy, so I know my point of view has that bias thing going on, but I know for sure that it's a great tool for the money. A slew of caveats apply: For example, I'm a sucker for the wireless flash control in the D90, but if that's not an important feature for you then the value is a little less.

I also know that the Canon T1i or T2i can also take excellent pictures for the money. These days it's getting difficult to go wrong.

I just picked up a second D90 when I saw the refurbished verson on sale for $675 at Adorama. I shoot weddings, so having two cameras is great for not having to switch lenses as much, and I love my D90 so much I just had to get another...

You'll usually have to spend slightly more for Nikon gear than for comparable Canon gear

Every time this comes up I feel compelled to observe: There's no "comparable gear" in the Canikon world. The two companies play the leapfrog game, never quite pitting models against one another in price or features. 'Course, this offset diminishes with older/used/refurbed gear as prices start to drop; and there's no question that Canon's cameras also kick some ass. Heck, every once and again I find myself shooting my buddy's original Digital Rebel and enjoy the experience, even with the different ergonomics.

You'll usually have to spend slightly more for Nikon gear than for comparable Canon gear

Every time this comes up I feel compelled to observe: There's no "comparable gear" in the Canikon world. The two companies play the leapfrog game, never quite pitting models against one another in price or features. 'Course, this offset diminishes with older/used/refurbed gear as prices start to drop; and there's no question that Canon's cameras also kick some ass. Heck, every once and again I find myself shooting my buddy's original Digital Rebel and enjoy the experience, even with the different ergonomics.

While this is true for bodies, the same can't be said for lenses.

Hence the Canon 10-22 EF-S matches up with the Nikkor 10-24.

The 50/1.8 MkII with the 50/1.8D.

The 70-200/2.8L IS USM with the 70-200/2.8 G ED VR II.

etc. etc.

There are gaps covered by one manufacturer that aren't covered by the other, and cases where one does better than the other, but in general, the Nikon gear is usually a bit more expensive where there is a directly comparable model.

However, I wouldn't be governed by the price difference, but rather by which manufacturer makes the lenses that I want to use, and how each lens performs.

For entry level and beginner-enthusiast stuff, there's not much difference between the big two.

Well I should first thank everyone for their enthusiast/professional level knowledge that at many points had me lost, I’ve been doing a lot of googlefu to try and keep up! With everything that everyone has said, it has definitely helped alleviate any fears I had of buying into the wrong system.

I spent a good hour and a half back in the shop yesterday and had no qualms about telling the fella in there that I’m a complete novice, and to his credit he was very patient (may have had something to do with me telling him that I was going to be walking away with a camera).

We looked at the D90 again, then the 550D and also the α500. After going through their respective pro and cons, it was still the D90 which was the most appealing to me, and the one I purchased.

It came with the 18-105 f3.5 – 5.6G lens, which as far as I know is a basic starter lens. For me it’s the lens jargon and technicalities that I have the least knowledge of, and will have to do a lot of homework to figure what will be best for me (which I look forward to doing).

Congratulations on your purchase. The thing to do now is to go shoot your first thousand photos so that you can get a feel for the type of photography that you like and the capabilities of your equipment. That's how to figure out which additional gear you will covet.

If you're starting your list, I would add a beginning photography book like Understanding Exposure at the top.

If you want to shoot photos indoors, a decent bounceable flash would be a big help. A large-aperture lens like the $200 AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G, the $125 AF 50mm f/1.8D or the $330 AF 50mm f/1.4D would allow you to shoot indoors without a flash.

Congrats Richie, although I didn't post anything before since I just now stumbled upon this thread and read through the entire thing lol. I think you'll really enjoy your Nikon D90! My first experience with DSLRs was with my dad's D70 and I fell in love with some of the features (and for me the ergonomics too) as well as their build quality. If it weren't for the very much attractive (price wise) offering of the Sony Alpha series for me I would have gone for a Nikon without a doubt, it helps that I could have burrowed some of my dads expensive glass too .

Hoser and Lex-ington both recommended a great book that I've had the pleasure of reading about a third of the way into so far and love the authors views and writing style and in-depth explanations. "Exposure: Photo Workshop" by Jeff Wignall. What I've liked so far with it is that he gives you assignments and their website allows you to upload your assignment photos for others to critique, and it helps you to look at others examples for that same assignment to see if you are anywhere near the mark of what you were supposed to get. If nothing else it will help you to understand the specs of the expensive glass you'll be buying to get the results you want and how they relate to your photography.

Well... again Congrats and I'm looking forward to your photos from Sweden (possibly the Aurora since you were talking low light). If you are in Denmark anytime soon as your profile suggests, snap some shots for me I've got family over there and would love to see how the country looks since last I visited (1997 IIRC)

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

Oops, good point. Although when it comes to lenses, I tend to hear laments over gaps in their product line compared to Canon. It doesn't affect me much, but then I don't have any intention of major glass investment.

The overall point always comes back to a need to know your gear, your style, and to know what you want. All else being equal, if you know company X offers feature Y that you really like, while company Z doesn't, the choice is essentially made for you.

Welch wrote:I'm looking forward to your photos from Sweden (possibly the Aurora since you were talking low light). If you are in Denmark anytime soon as your profile suggests, snap some shots for me I've got family over there and would love to see how the country looks since last I visited (1997 IIRC)

Thanks for the congrats! Unfortunately I live in the southern part of Sweden (Skåne), and so don’t see the aurora borealis here. That and the fact that I live in a city means I can forget about it. I work in Denmark though only as far as Copenhagen airport – but I do intend to stroll around a bit in town in my time off as I often do, so I'll be sure to snap a few landmarks for you to check out.

Anyways I’ve been out a bit and have been taking some pics, which I’m processing atm and will post to the general photography thread for critique soon...

"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life."